Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
You're not a big fan of consent when it doesn't suit your argument...
I don't know exactly when I'd put abortion as murder. I don't really care enough to find just the perfect time for it because 1) it will be my opinion and not what everyone else will agree with (as you'll never get people to agree on something like that), 2) the time limit just has to be long enough to allow for a choice to be made, and 3) places have been getting along just fine with time limits on abortion.
"Other people think so" isn't my reason...
Just looked up the very first one. Hospitals must allow whoever as visitors that the patient wants as a visitor (and that was before gay marriage became legal). The democrats are only left for social issues, that's the way it's been for quite awhile, and they use that to act like they are progressive. Why do you keep voting for them?
If death is the most natural, then birth right there with it.
Says the dude arguing for forced birth
Fantastic, and how long is that? You can't expect me to agree to compromise on a moving target can you? Especially when we're talking about using government force to make somebody permanently and drastically alter their body while risking death at the cost of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
You literally refuse to have your own opinion and keep citing "other people do it so it's fine". Like, in the literal quote block above this one
Easily debunked lies. It's like you're wholly allergic to context
And if people are shooting for religious exemptions to masks, you'd better believe our huge numbers of religious hospitals are gonna go for that too soon as it isn't a marriage. There's a reason so many hospital names start with Saint
Because they are left on social issues, which beats out your "who cares if they ban gays from getting married, make trans healthcare illegal, and forced birth is fine if other people are okay with it" stances 7 days out of the week.
You're for forced medical things as well. I at least stick to my principles across everything, you change yours to suit the issue at hand.
Again, I don't really care the exact time because it's not that big of a deal. If I think 20 weeks is right, you think I'm going to shame some woman for getting an abortion at 21 weeks? No, because that's ridiculous. So, again, what does it matter as long as there's enough time for the choice to be made? And, I'm also not one to even know the appropriate time for that choice to be made, I'm not gonna pull something out my ass just to pull something out my ass. It's not like something you have to get perfectly right like the math on sending people to the moon or some shit.
Nope, I explained it at least twice or three times now.
Huh?
Since 2011, federal regulations requires any hospital accepting Medicare and Medicaid to allow patients to say who they want as visitors.
There's more than 2 choices....
Considering that you are here, in this thread, arguing there should be a point where the government should enforce forced birth, the fuck you are
So maybe the government shouldn't be involved at all, given it does very badly in wishy washy subjective situations. Kinda like how Colorado already works. You get that in order for them to make a law, they have to define things, right? Nation-states need better bureaucracy than "ehh, just eyeball it"
Then you're doing it very badly
You should keep fucking reading
On paper, sure. Mathematically, no, not until your unnamed third party can take and hold a state. Though given what I'm gleaning from your politics, I'd probably be voting against them regardless
You're arguing the government should allow for killing of babies.
Just about all our peer countries are doing just fine with abortion laws.
You're not reading very well.
About being unable to communicate in the hospital? You can do paperwork to fix that situation.
The people have the power to vote for anyone. A 3rd party can take and hold whatever once you start voting for them.
Zero babies are harmed in my scenario. Or your scenario, as you refuse to define when it becomes so.
"We should have limits because others do" is not an argument by itself.
What, when you aren't able to communicate? The paperwork is currently called "marriage" and it's much less of a pain in the ass and requires much less foresight than not that. Plus, religious hospitals have already lost their religious exemption suits against it. Give me one good reason to get rid of gay marriage
In the perfectly rational world that is not our own, sure. Come back to me when you can take and hold a state legislature
You made the same fucking argument that it works in Colorado. It also works in many other countries with abortion laws.
I never said to get rid of gay marriage, just that it wasn't some massive win. It's a drop in the bucket compared to stuff like healthcare reform, affordable housing, sensible pay distribution, and many others. Doing any of those that democrats constantly run on but never do would be far more beneficial to the gay community (and really any community) than gay marriage.
It's on the people to do it. If a third party say has the money influx and power to win, how'd they be much different than the 2 current parties? We'd just have 3 flavors of the same thing then.
I then articulated *why* I believe it was and is the correct decision in a way that doesn't actually rely on it being legal in Colorado
When is a fetus a person? At what point does the government get to decide that you personally have to sacrifice bits of yourself at your own expense to, at a minimum, radically alter your own body and risk death to save somebody else? I do not care that other people think that it is acceptable behavior for a government, why do you think it is justified?
Yes it is. If it weren't, conservatives wouldn't be trying to dismantle it
Mate, you need the power to win in order to...win. You get that, right? You will never convince people to support your pie in the sky national ambitions without proving that you can take and hold a smaller government. And even if you did, and your libertarian candidate won his moonshot presidency, he'd have zero legislative backing. Ya gotta put in the work, sad to say
No you didn't you literally said "maybe governments shouldn't be involved at all... Kinda like how Colorado already works". You're argument is literally it works in Colorado, it also works in many other countries with abortion laws.
And at what point do you allow the killing of babies? I've tried to keep the discussion not about the 2 basic arguments but all you do is keep throwing out the other one as if it somehow makes your stance right when it doesn't.
And gay marriage isn't going anywhere. You do realize both parties have talking points that they really only talk about to get votes and they don't really care about, this is one of them.
Yes, the PEOPLE have to vote both parties out of everything. The PEOPLE have the POWER. Or is your solution just continue voting for democrats and then maybe your great great great grandchildren will finally have healthcare reform because that's about as soon as it'll be here if you keep voting for who you're voting for?
In response to your wishy washy "there should be a time limit but I don't know what it is because it's complicated" stance. Governments can't *do* that and attach law to it. So they shouldn't be involved, for that and a host of other reasons I've already explained. Which is true regardless of Colorado's rules, but which Colorado proves works without inviting a swarm of 8 month pregnant psychos looking to blur the edge between birth and abortion for kicks.
Now defend your stance without saying "other countries have bans and I don't personally see or acknowledge the problems they have"
Nobody's allowed to kill a baby, that's infanticide and is decidedly illegal, even in Colorado. Just the same, a baby is not allowed to use somebody else's body as their own without consent, same as anybody else. If that results in the death of the baby, so be it, same as with anybody else. Now: when does a fetus turn into a baby, Phoenix?
Like, you can't pin down the time that a pregnancy should be government enforced, but you want me to agree to an arbitrary time limit anyway? Fuck off with that
Hilarious, said the same about Roe. GOP is actively gunning for it as a national organ.
I don't have a solution. I just know that yours has been tried and has always failed spectacularly. I support and vote as left as possible in primaries, and short of a Tea Party situation or a spectacular implosion, that's about as much power as I have.
Last edited:
And where's all the women suffering bad outcomes in other peer countries with abortion laws?
Insert Bill Burr cake analogy.
Who said that about Roe v Wade? That was pretty known to be rather poor law pointed out over the years. Gay marriage was far far far better argued and has basically airtight constitutional protections. So yeah keep voting for the democrats that aren't helping by not codifying Roe over 50 years and not doing really anything to actually help all these groups you so staunchly protect because you're scared of something happening that will not happen and it's just all a ploy. Both parties work together to keep themselves in power, they don't care if you vote for them or the other party. Republicans threatening shit like gay marriage not only helps their base (slightly, most conservative voters don't care about gay marriage) and helps by getting you to vote for the other party in fear of them losing and thinking something like gay marriage will be overturned.
My solution while highly unlikely to happen is the way it can be done. You'd think with a pandemic and people losing health insurance because they lost their job, people might see how stupid it is to have healthcare tied to employment and actually rise up and demand a new healthcare system, but that didn't even come close to happening. It's hard to get people to change their major worldviews.
Polish state has ‘blood on its hands’ after death of woman refused an abortion
Family says young mother’s health deteriorated rapidly after the twins she was carrying died a week apart in the womb
www.theguardian.com
She needed an abortion to survive. Texas was ready to let her die with her baby
A Texas woman was forced to travel 10 hours to New Mexico to have an abortion to save her life and to end a pregnancy that her baby had no chance of surviving. She shares her story with Rachel Sharp and reveals why the only way she may be able to start a family is to leave her home state
www.independent.co.uk
(Plus, like, the 10 year old elephant in the room)
Gonna be honest, didn't watch the YouTube video from the comedian. Care to have your own opinion? On anything? Or do I have a supposedly moral obligation to compromise with forced birth in general, with zero specifics?
It's an explicit plank of the GOP and was tied to Roe
Yeah, super weird how a tiny 3rd party organization with zero power, money, legitimacy, or exposure was completely unable to foment a nationwide revolution.
Spontaneous People's Revolutions are not a thing
Last edited:
Third parties can happen. But they require a huge amount of organisation, drive, funding and so on, probably someone with a great deal of established popular (often in the political sphere) respect.
The US political system seems to be particularly effective at limiting, destroying, or co-opting into the big two any such parties. Nevertheless, there is rarely anything more tedious than hearing people moan on and on about the big parties and then doing nothing but hoping a third option is just going to magically appear from someone else's hard work that they can vote for.
Pretty funny you pick the European country with probably the most restricting abortion law to draw your example. Where's all these women in say Norway or Denmark suffering at? How are those countries rated as the happiest countries in the world when half their population is suffering such horrible abortion laws?Polish state has ‘blood on its hands’ after death of woman refused an abortion
Family says young mother’s health deteriorated rapidly after the twins she was carrying died a week apart in the wombShe needed an abortion to survive. Texas was ready to let her die with her baby
A Texas woman was forced to travel 10 hours to New Mexico to have an abortion to save her life and to end a pregnancy that her baby had no chance of surviving. She shares her story with Rachel Sharp and reveals why the only way she may be able to start a family is to leave her home state
(Plus, like, the 10 year old elephant in the room)
Gonna be honest, didn't watch the YouTube video from the comedian. Care to have your own opinion? On anything? Or do I have a supposedly moral obligation to compromise with forced birth in general, with zero specifics?
It's an explicit plank of the GOP and was tied to Roe
Yeah, super weird how a tiny 3rd party organization with zero power, money, legitimacy, or exposure was completely unable to foment a nationwide revolution.
Spontaneous People's Revolutions are not a thing
Bill Burr's bit is basically my opinion.
What logical reasoning do you have that gay marriage would ever be overturned?
Huh? When did I say a 3rd party was supposed to start a nationwide revolution? I was disappointed that people themselves couldn't see how stupid tying health insurance to employment is when a pandemic happened and millions and millions of people lost insurance when they needed it most. It literally happened in front of everyone's faces. Why does some 3rd party need to point this out to people? The people should be able to point it out themselves. You can much more easily get 3rd party candidates into power with rank-choice voting so you can vote for say John Smith as #1 and then the democrat if you're worried that voting for John Smith is just a vote that the republicans are gaining because John Smith is only going to get like 1% of the vote and no conservatives are voting for him and thus the worst candidate might win due to you voting for the best candidate. Also, guess who's opposed to rank-choice voting...? Democrats.
The Democrats Trying to Overturn an Election
The nation’s largest city overwhelmingly approved a referendum to adopt ranked-choice voting a year ago. Now some elected leaders are trying to delay the reform.
www.theatlantic.com
Democrats are purposefully pushing out left candidates from elections. Why do you keep voting and supporting this party?
You mean apart from the Supreme Court Justice directly saying that Obergefell should be relitigated?
Don't forget that Republicans have also brought back their patented 90s/00s "all lgbt people are pedophiles" hysteria with their culture war "groomer" usage.
And that has any chance of actually happening? What actual legal argument can be made to overturn gay marriage?
The exact same one that was used to overturn Roe...